Bond strength and micro-computed tomographic evaluation of pre-coated brackets


Share / Export Citation / Email / Print / Text size:

Australasian Orthodontic Journal

Australian Society of Orthodontists

Subject: Dentistry, Orthodontics & Medicine


ISSN: 2207-7472
eISSN: 2207-7480





Volume / Issue / page

Volume 38 (2022)
Volume 37 (2021)
Volume 36 (2020)
Volume 35 (2019)
Volume 34 (2018)
Volume 33 (2017)
Volume 32 (2016)
Volume 31 (2015)
Related articles

VOLUME 31 , ISSUE 2 (November 2015) > List of articles

Bond strength and micro-computed tomographic evaluation of pre-coated brackets

Waleed Bakhadher * / Nabeel Talic / Khalid Al Hezaimi

Citation Information : Australasian Orthodontic Journal. Volume 31, Issue 2, Pages 201-207, DOI:

License : (CC BY 4.0)

Published Online: 15-August-2021



Objectives: The aim of the present study was to assess and compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of metal pre-coated orthodontic brackets bonded to fluorotic and non-fluorotic teeth treated with three different etching techniques. A second aim was to determine the volume of adhesive remaining on the tooth at debond using micro-computed tomography (µCT).

Methods: Ninety extracted premolars were selected to include 45 fluorotic (test group) and 45 non-fluorotic (control group) teeth. Each group was divided into three subgroups of 15 each, which were treated as follows: 1) micro-etched; 2) acid-etched; and 3) both micro-etched and acid-etched. A bonding agent was applied to the prepared surfaces; pre-coated and light-cured brackets were attached to all teeth. An Instron universal testing machine was used to record the debonding force. Specimens were then scanned using a microCT to evaluate the amount of adhesive remaining on the teeth. The significance of the statistical tests was pre-determined at p < 0.05.

Results: Two-way ANOVA showed that fluorosis of teeth had no influence on the SBS (p = 0.165) whereas the volume of adhesive remnants was significantly higher in the control group compared with the test group (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Fluorosis had no influence on the SBS of brackets, whereas it had a negative influence on retaining adhesives onto the tooth surfaces.

Content not available PDF Share



1. Grubisa HS, Heo G, Raboud D, Glover KE, Major PW. An evaluation and comparison of orthodontic bracket bond strengths achieved with self-etching primer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126:213-9.

2. Proffit WR, Fields Jr HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary orthodontics. 5th Ed. St. Louis: Mosby, 2013.

3. Noble J, Karaiskos NE, Wiltshire WA. In vivo bonding of orthodontic brackets to fluorosed enamel using an adhesion promotor. Angle Orthod 2008;78:357-60.

4. Miller RA. Bonding fluorosed teeth: new materials for old problems. J Clin Orthod 1995;29:424-7.

5. Ateyah N, Akpata E. Factors affecting shear bond strength of composite resin to fluorosed human enamel. Oper Dent 2000;25:216-22.

6. Awliya WY, Akpata ES. Effect of fluorosis on shear bond strength of glass ionomer-based restorative materials to dentin. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:290-4.

7. Ermiş RB, Gokay N. Effect of fluorosis on dentine shear bond strength of a self-etching bonding system. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30:1090-4.

8. Weerasinghe DS, Nikaido T, Wettasinghe KA, Abayakoon JB, Tagami J. Micro-shear bond strength and morphological analysis of a self-etching primer adhesive system to fluorosed enamel. J Dent 2005;33:419-26.

9. Ng’ang’a PM, Ogaard B, Cruz R, Chindia ML, Aasrum E. Tensile strength of orthodontic brackets bonded directly to fluorotic and nonfluorotic teeth: an in vitro comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;102:244-50.

10. Adanir N, Türkkahraman H, Yalçin Güngör A. Effects of adhesion promoters on the shear bond strengths of orthodontic brackets to fluorosed enamel. Eur J Orthod 2009;31:276-80.

11. Borsatto MC, Catirse AB, Palma Dibb RG, Nascimento TN, Rocha RA, Corona SA. Shear bond strength of enamel surface treated with air-abrasive system. Braz Dent J 2002;13:175-8.

12. Canay S, Kocadereli I, Ak”ca E. The effect of enamel air abrasion on the retention of bonded metallic orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;117:15-9.

13. Reisner KR, Levitt HL, Mante F. Enamel preparation for orthodontic bonding: a comparison between the use of a sandblaster and current techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;111:366-73.

14. Artun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod 1984;85:333-40.

15. Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Tandecka K, Szatkiewicz T, SporniakTutak K, Grocholewicz K. Three-dimensional quantitative analysis of adhesive remnants and enamel loss resulting from debonding orthodontic molar tubes. Head Face Med 2014;10:37.

16. Ryf S, Flury S, Palaniappan S, Lussi A, van Meerbeek B, Zimmerli B. Enamel loss and adhesive remnants following bracket removal and various clean-up procedures in vitro. Eur J Orthod 2012;34:25-32.

17. Lee YK, Lim YK. Three-dimensional quantification of adhesive remnants on teeth after debonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:556-62.

18. Brosh T, Strouthou S, Sarne O. Effects of buccal versus lingual surfaces, enamel conditioning procedures and storage duration on brackets debonding characteristics. J Dent 2005;33:99-105.

19. Miksi M, Slaj M, Mestrovi S. Stereomicroscope analysis of enamel surface after orthodontic bracket debonding. Coll Antropol 2003;27:83-9.

20. Hosein I, Sherriff M, Ireland AJ. Enamel loss during bonding, debonding, and cleanup with use of a self-etching primer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126:717-24.

21. Louie TM, Jones RS, Sarma AV, Fried D. Selective removal of composite sealants with near-ultraviolet laser pulses of nanosecond duration. J Biomed Opt 2005;10:14001.

22. Sudit G. Debonding and adhesive remnant cleanup: an in vitro comparison of bond quality, adhesive remnant cleanup, and orthodontic acceptance of a flash-free product. Dissertation. Minnesota: University of Minnesota, 2014.

23. Thylstrup A, Fejerskov O. Clinical appearance of dental fluorosis in permanent teeth in relation to histologic changes. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1978;6:315-28.

24. Shida K, Kitasako Y, Burrow MF, Tagami J. Micro-shear bond strengths and etching efficacy of a two-step self-etching adhesive system to fluorosed and non-fluorosed enamel. Eur J Oral Sci 2009;117:182-6.

25. Suma S, Anita G, Chandra Shekar BR, Kallury A. The effect of air abrasion on the retention of metallic brackets bonded to fluorosed enamel surface. Indian J Dent Res 2012;23:230-5.

26. Al Shamsi A, Cunningham JL, Lamey PJ, Lynch E. Shear bond strength and residual adhesive after orthodontic bracket debonding. Angle Orthod 2006;76:694-9.

27. Sorel O, El Alam R, Chagneau F, Cathelineau G. Comparison of bond strength between simple foil mesh and laser-structured base retention brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:260-6.